Committee Minutes

Minutes/Service-Safety Standby Committee
Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 4:30 p.m._______

Members present: Chairman Kreun, Brooks, Kerian.
Also present: Al Grasser, city engineer,

1. Matter of trunk infrastructure funding alternatives.
A) Utility funding
B) Assessment/future assessment
C) Tapping areas____________________________
2. Matter of existing properties south of 40th Avenue South.

Chairman Kreun stated that this particular piece of property on 40th Avenue is what prompted the discussion as council did not like this funding mechanism, tabled it and asked committee to look at this policy - asked what would be the criteria for a utility funded project - that it may not be a good idea to have a utility-funded trunk infrastructure plan. Funding comes out of utilities and may have to take more utility money and the only thing it does is that it reaches organizations and people who don't pay taxes and that is good part, but those who pay taxes get doubled. He stated he and Mr. Grasser tried to find a different method and a fair method if they are going to bill people for this in special assessments as some have developed their own, some furnished with CDBG. There is money in the 2005 budget and what working on is for 2006 and may mean they can't continue it but is money for this year. Kreun stated that after speaking with Mr. Peterson from the Stadter Center and they understand the special assessment portion of it and not get any backlash from special assessing this project, but the problem is that council wants to have the policy and follow it - put it in place and be consistent and not have this jumping back and forth.

Kreun stated they did look at the criteria for funding in sanitary sewer infrastructure and encourages growth, percent residential zoning in potential service area, percent commercial/ industrial zoning in potential service area, land/easements provided at no cost to City; avoids need for future lift stations, interest expressed by owner/developer, and encourages compact growth - those were taken out of the discussions and out of policy they had put together and did add a definition of trunk sanitary sewer Grasser stated the evaluation criteria only comes into play if the City is providing funding for the sewer, and if not providing funding, nothing to evaluate. Kreun stated that project does fit into utility funding procedure. Kerian asked if we have a policy and do we fund the policy, then need criteria. Kreun stated that if you look at A, B and C under trunk infrastructure funding alternatives (on agenda), they thought about future assessment and that is what doing now in a modified form and is very confusing, even the utility funding and using criteria in our policy confusing. Grasser showed maps, how drawn out

Grasser stated they talked to Mr. Swanson re. some of the alternatives and the assessment one, there is a higher level of justification that has to come to mind- anything in the assessment is designated and variable and gives them the choices and behave the way the most cost effective way for the user - because sometimes isn't best for the total city but only for that individual person or developer/builder. Grasser stated from an administrative standpoint it is easier to administer a future assessment but given the variability of where their lines actually go, can't guarantee will collect all the money - that Mr. Swanson had said if want to give an assessment to somebody for going into a particular line but their sewer doesn't go into that line, don't think can do it but on a tapping fee, can make a policy and may get two tappings, one from each direction and doesn't matter which one that you tie into, you're going to pay for both because it is more the potential that is there and don't have to prove that your water goes into this sewer as opposed to this one so have more flexibility.

Kerian asked if it matter where they got the money, and even though put infrastructure in with CDBG, can circle that area and do tapping in there; Grasser stated that can't go back and redo the old ones; he stated they will create a policy and follow that policy from here on out. Kreun stated a tapping area that is all paid by tapping fee, and that the cost of that sewer comes out of the Sanitary Sewer Fund, and when collect the tapping fees it will go back into that Fund. Kerian asked how they would designate a tapping area - Kreun showed an area that punched in under the street and they are now paying on this larger area - and whatever it costs in this quadrant, that's what he pay and the tapping fee paid back into sanitary sewer fund. Grasser stated that once they are tied into a gravity sewer, that the process is that you create the tapping area, do the project and then could identify the cost.

The committee reviewed pros and cons of the various alternatives.

After further discussion Kerian moved that we recommend the policy for trunk sanitary sewer infrastructure is that we establish large tapping areas but exclude from those properties currently receiving trunk infrastructure services in the city. (Grasser would have to define large) The motion was seconded by Brooks.

Grasser stated they wanted to exclude those receiving benefits on this particular one but may not want to do that in the future because that allows you to capture what they had been discussing re. people outside the boundary. Kreun stated for the future to let them hook up but we will have a per foot cost and that is what he pays at that point in time because it is not special assessments and can charge fees and we recapture just about everything, everybody pays upfront and we collect plus interest but in this particular piece get to exclude those and get direction from Howard, as Howard says we can charge fees but on special assessments cannot, can only pertain to that particular project.

It was noted that our motion is to establish a policy that established tapping area on a larger scope, and only thing they have to check with Howard is if we can add estimated cost.
Grasser stated it is not an issue on this one because the area on the south side of 47th is already developed so there is nobody in there that would try to cross the boundary. Kreun stated the motion we are putting on the floor encompasses this existing project that we're working on and it also covers future projects in the same manner; and stated the only difference this project would have to any future projects is we're going to exempt these three or four pieces of property because they are already hooked up, and that is all we have to do in this particular one, other than that they would not be exempt. Grasser stated there is a sewer line that runs along the south side of 32nd and we are picking up those people in this district that will come in and hook onto that line and that part will be consistent with how apply it in the future.

Grasser stated that if the council ever gets to a point where you want to provide a free sanitary sewer to some location in future do it based on a determination of economic development or treat it as special case as opposed to having two policies to deal with it.
Kerian questioned whether we want to say that this is a replacement for that policy. Kreun stated he thinks we have to because we are not going to be taking money out of our sanitary sewer funds to fund mainline infrastructure anymore. Kerian and Brooks added to the motion that this is a replacement for the previous trunk infrastructure policy.

Kerian stated the piece that isn't in here is when new people come into an area next to that and we're not ready to put infrastructure in, what happens; and that is a question for Howard.
Grasser stated this is policy and modify as need to as based on Howard's recommendation.
Kreun stated the only question they have to ask Howard is if we can take the estimated cost because don't have a lift station over here yet, but know our per sq. ft. cost and charge them that estimated cost and is only bill and if want to punch in under the street, that's his second cost because almost always have two costs.

The committee stated this matter will be placed on the next committee of the whole agenda, and then to the city council.

Upon call for the question, the motion carried.

3. Adjourn
Upon motion by Brooks and Kerian, the meeting adjourned.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk

Dated: 5/16/05